Anti-genetic engineering activism and scientized politics in the case of “contaminated” Mexican maize

Abstract

The struggle over genetically-engineered (GE) maize in Mexico reveals a deep conflict over the criteria used in the governance of agri-food systems. Policy debate on the topic of GE maize has become ''scientized,'' granting experts a high level of political authority, and narrowing the regulatory domain to matters that can be adjudicated on the basis of scientific information or ''managed'' by environmental experts. While scientization would seem to narrow opportunities for public participation, this study finds that Mexican activists acting ''in defense of maize'' engage science in multiple ways, using and producing scientific knowledge as well as treating scientific discussions as a stage for launching complex social critiques. Drawing from research in science and technology studies, this article assesses the impacts and pitfalls of three tactics used by maize activists that respond to the scientization of biotechnology politics: (1) using scientific information as a resource; (2) participating in scientific research; and (3) reframing policy problems as broadly social, rather than as solely scientific or technical. The obstacles that maize activists have faced in carrying out each of these efforts indicate that despite diverse and sophisticated engagements between social movements and the scientific field, scientization remains a significant institutional barrier to democratizing agricultural governance.

Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental

“…In this context Marcussen's (2006) comparative analysis leads him to the conclusion that central banking has become 'apolitical' or 'scientised', in the sense that 'central banking in many ways transcends formal politics' and is viewed as little more than a scientific exercise in complex econometric modelling. In this conclusion Marcussen can draw upon the complementary research findings of Timmermans and Scholten (2006) in the Netherlands, Abolafia's (2012) case study of the American Federal Reserve, Roberts' (2010, ch 2) cross-country comparative analysis, as well as Hoppe (2009), Kinchy (2010), and Beveridge's (2012) very different analyses of the depoliticising capacity of scientific advice (for a discussion see Watson, 2002).…”

Health dispossessions and the moralization of disease: the case of diarrhea in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

“…As a result, such phenomena have received apolitical explanations and responses (P. Brown and Zavestoski 2004;Kinchy 2010). This holds true for public health problems, sometimes claimed to be effectively managed because they are non-political (Goldberg 2012).…”

Frankenfish or Fish to Feed the World? Scientism and Biotechnology Regulatory Policy

“…Activists have used social, economic, and political frameworks for evaluating biotechnology, resisting the scientism‐based framework relied on by government agencies and industry groups (Kinchy ; Schurman ; Walsh‐Dilley ). Social movement scholars show that antibiotechnology discourses have been successful because they resonate with broader social and ethical concerns of the general public (Schurman and Munro ).…”

“…This article seeks to provide greater understanding of what might be driving the dysfunction and public controversy about biotechnology. One theory posits that the scientization of public debate about biotechnology has fueled the political controversy, rather than putting it to rest (Kinchy ). Scientization is the reframing of a public controversy about new science and technology into a risk assessment carried out by scientific experts (Kinchy :2).…”